Government and Politics in Ancient Rome- The Republic DOCUMENTARY

According to legend, Rome was founded by Romulus, who gave his name to the city and became its first king. From then on, six more kings followed, the last of which was expelled by the people after a series of abuses of power and a major public scandal to boot. From then on, the Roman people decided their state would no longer be governed by just one man, but instead would be a public thing, a res publica in Latin, giving us the word republic. The republic proved to be a resounding success as it gave Rome a stable government for almost 500 years, during which time Rome grew from a small town into a major world power. The republic itself came to shape and form Roman society and the institutions, offices and political mechanisms involved all remained in use when the empire came around. The republic was a source of admiration and inspiration to many statesmen. Most notably, the founding fathers of the United States of America based the American constitution in large part directly on the Roman Republic. So, what was so special about the republic? Who held what power? And how did it all work? In this video, I will answer all these questions and many more. It's a lot to cover, but it's worth it. So, let's get started. At the core of the Roman political system was the so-called honorary course, the cursus honorum, a pre-set career path for politicians following a strictly hierarchical sequence of public offices to successively hold. These offices, called magistracies, were all held for a term of just one year and they could not be held for more than once, with the exception of the highest office, but still only with an interval of 10 years. In between these different offices, public servants were expected or required to serve in the military, as in Roman times there really was no dividing line between civil and military careers. Through public elections, these offices could be attained by any man that met the requirements in age, wealth and military experience. Competition for these offices was fierce, as each level of office came with more influence and political power, and with that, potential for making money. The honorary course contained only four different types of magistrates, each with its own set of responsibilities. Think of these as ministers, but more limited and precise in their job description. To give you an idea of what these magistrates conserved themselves with, and to get you acquainted with the main actors of Roman politics, we'll quickly skim over the different public offices. The first and lowest office was that of quaestor, of which by the time of Caesar there were 40 each year. They were responsible for the supervision of the state treasury and its spending. As such, they were spread out across the Roman state, attached as financial aids to other magistrates, provincial governors and army commanders. The next office in line is that of aedile. The aedile was tasked with the city management of Rome. By the time of Caesar there were six of these each year. Amongst their responsibilities were the food and water supply of the city, management of traffic and city infrastructure, organization and regulation of markets, the state archives and, most important for the Rome popularity, the organization of annual games in Rome. The third and second highest office of the sequence was that of praetor. Of these there were 16 by the end of the republic. The praetors were responsible for the administration of justice and they served as the supreme civil judges for legal cases. But this office was also the first one to bring with it the power of military command. This military command was usually of minor extent, used to assign praetors to smaller armies, typically to put down a rebellion or fight overall less significant wars or battles. The fourth and highest public office was that of consul. Of these there were two. Together they shared the power, quite literally, as they often took turns in whatever power could not effectively be shared. The consul can be seen as the head of state, representing the state in important religious ceremonies and foreign diplomacy. Next to that they had many executive and administrative powers and responsibilities, such as presiding over the elections, summoning and presiding over the senate and the legislative assemblies, determining dates for certain national holidays and being responsible for the communication and execution of laws. But maybe most important of all, to themselves at least, was their military command. They were the commanders-in-chief of Rome's army and expected to act as its generals on the battlefield. In this capacity their powers were far more extensive and unchecked, although for the actual matter of starting wars they were still bound to the senate. Next to these four magistracies there was one other that was outside of the standard career ladder, but of great importance in the functioning of Roman politics and governing. The tribune, also known as tribune of the plebs, named after the Latin name for the common people, plebeians or plebs in short. This magistracy was originally created as a representative of the people, so accordingly it could only be plebeians who filled this office. However, just like with the other magistracies, there was still a wealth threshold to meet, so these men were far from your average joe. For their role as defender of the interests of the people, like consuls, tribunes had the power to convene the senate and the legislative assembly to propose laws to them. Tribunes had the power of the veto, with which he was able to block any action of any other magistrate, even of the consuls. Although the general esteem of the tribunate was considerably less than that of the consulship, and tribunes were usually elected after serving just the their political power was, in potential, enormous. Together, this collection of magistrates formed what can be seen as the government of ancient Rome, in the sense that they held the executive power. So they were responsible for enforcing and carrying out laws, but they also held a major part of the legislative power, namely to propose new laws. Other than that, the Roman government wasn't like anything we know today. First of all, it was very minimalistic and did not concern itself with things we deem essential parts of governing nowadays, like for example education and healthcare. Also, these magistrates did not form a single coherent unit of government, who, at any point, got together and discussed and planned policy. In fact, these politicians didn't even have any There was no such thing as political parties in ancient Rome. Instead, each of these magistrates acted on its own and had its own political agenda. That is not to say there was no consistency in Roman policymaking though. For that, the Roman state relied on the senate. The senate was a governmental institution consisting of some hundred men, exact numbers fluctuating mostly between 300 and 600, depending on time period. These men were all magistrates or former magistrates, as appointment to the senate was automatic and for life when attaining any magistracy, at least in a late republic. With so much experience and prestige packed together, the senate formed Rome's most influential and authoritative institution. Together, these men were often referred to as giving name to the highest social and economic class within Roman society, patricians. The senate had a slew of different roles. Their official and exclusive responsibilities concerned the bigger topics of state governing, the overall safety of the state and law and order within it, the management of the state treasury and everything that had to do with foreign policy. On all these topics, the senate had exclusive competence, meaning they could decide and decree without the involvement of any other institution. These topics concerned mostly one-off matters like, for example, war and peace, the recruitment and distribution of legions across the land, the appointment of magistrates to govern provinces and command armies, the minting of new coins, and, as part of law and order, also the regulation of religions. This last thing we know because the senate's degree has survived from the 2nd century BC, in which the senate forbade the worship of the god of wine, Bacchus. On the matter of more general lawmaking, the Roman system was more balanced. Here, the consuls and tribunes held the initiative. They could convene the senate and address a certain issue, whether or not followed by a concrete proposal. The senate then discussed the matter and instructed the magistrate on how to proceed. If indeed the senate concurred and proposed to form a new law, the magistrate then brought the bill before the assembly of the people, who voted to either pass or reject the bill. And although the senate's instructions were not officially binding, the senate's advice was almost always followed by both the magistrates and the voting assemblies. Such was the authority the senate carried. The senate formed their opinion by way of debating and voting. They did so gathered together in either a temple or a curia, which was a sacred and dedicated meeting house. There were many of these meeting houses throughout the city, but the senate usually gathered in the one on the central forum, this one right behind me. Within the senate, a clear hierarchy existed. According to the office a senator had managed to obtain, and also the overall status he held. At the top were the oldest, most experienced senators, who had held the consulship, sometimes even multiple times. Being allowed to speak first, it was them who dominated the debates and steered the general feeling in the senate. The younger, lower-ranked senators simply sat, listened, and picked sides when it came to voting. But their votes were not unimportant, because all votes weighed equally in the senate. So a clear way to increase one's political power and success in the senate was to try and win over and bind as many other senators to you as possible. Some of such allegiances were formed naturally by having shared political views or other interests. Other methods were more questionable. For example, another way to tie another senator to you was to promote him when running for an office or to sponsor his electoral campaign. A lot less subtle was to outright gift a young and ambitious nobleman the required amount of money to meet the wealth threshold to be able to enter the senate. Of course, such help created an undeniable debt between the recipient and the donor. Oftentimes, these debts were not to be paid back in money, but rather in social and political loyalty, where the recipient of the gift would support the donor in whatever voting matter in the senate, and he would defend and support him in public, in the senate, or on trial. This system of exchanging favors was typically Roman and took place throughout the entire Roman society, from high to low. When the debt between the two parties was so great that it could not or was not expected to be paid back, the relationship between the two parties would gain a more permanent character. The person receiving the favor would then officially become a clients, a client to the person extending the favor, who was referred to as a patronus, a patron. For the clients, this system granted them access to the highest echelons of society, giving them the possibility to ask for their aid, either in personal matters or in addressing more general political topics. For the rich and powerful men who partook in the forming of a clientela, a network of clients, this system created a far-reaching sphere of influence into the lower layers of society that could be employed especially well when it came to elections. Because when the patron ran for office, his clients would all be expected to vote for him, or even recruit more votes for him amongst their friends and family and possibly their own clients. This way, not all clients were equal, as they could be dirt-poor beggars or respected and powerful men with influence in their own right. Obviously, the latter were more valuable, but the poorer clients, in their numbers, had their own way of supporting their patron. For example, they could be called upon to join the patron on his way to the forum, where business and politics were conducted. The bigger the crowd that accompanied someone, the more powerful he could be expected to be. The famous and popular reformer Tiberius Gracchus was said to have been regularly accompanied by a crowd of 5000 men, although these were not necessarily all clients, but also just genuine political supporters. Either way, you can imagine how this added to the persuasiveness of any one person. But the people could do much more than just add their physical presence to a politician. The people had some real direct political power too. Their official political role was exercised in the voting assemblies, which voted for the elections of magistrates and also the passing or rejecting of proposed laws. These tasks were either done by one of two assemblies, either the so-called tribal assembly or the centurion assembly. Both assemblies were open to all Roman citizens, but that's about the only thing we would consider fair and democratic about them nowadays. In the centurion assembly, voters were grouped according to their wealth, and so was the weight of their votes. The few richest groups actually had slightly more than half of all the voting power, despite making up only a tiny fraction of the population. And this happened to be the assembly that elected the praetors and consuls, the highest magistrates. With the Roman elite being highly conservative and protective of their own position, this made it extremely difficult for men born outside of the traditional senatorial families to become praetor or consul. Such an outsider making it into the ranks of the senate was called a new man. A famous example is Cicero. Considerably less difficult to attain for men not of noble birth were the lower magistracies of quaestor, aedile and tribune. These magistrates were all chosen in the other assembly, the tribal assembly, also referred to as the assembly of the people. Here voters were not ranked according to wealth, but rather to the geographical district where they lived. But because all votes were always held in Rome, the people in and near Rome were overrepresented in this assembly, while from the countryside mostly just the rich showed up, who could afford the trip to Rome and the day off. So usually votes in this assembly wouldn't quite be a fair representation of the will of the Roman people either. But for real important matters, when more people would make the effort to travel to Rome, the poor and middle class could and regularly did dominate the rich in this assembly. And this was not only the assembly that elected quaestors, aediles and tribunes, but also the assembly that voted on the passing of any new laws. The power of the assembly in the functioning of the Roman state therefore cannot be underestimated, especially when paired with a popular and willing tribune who could propose laws to it, the assembly of the people could truly bring about groundbreaking reforms to the foundations of Roman society, regardless of the will of the senate and the ruling elite. Such a thing happened on occasion, for example when the voting ballot was introduced, whereby votes became anonymous. This detracted greatly from the power of the patrons over their clients voting behavior, for they could no longer check their clients votes. Another law that greatly impacted senators and magistrates was the one that changed their trials for abuse of power to no longer be judged over by just senators, but instead by people from a lower social class. This made magistrates a lot more vulnerable and dependent on those lower classes. It goes to show the assembly of the people could enact laws in their own interest, going against the interests of the elite. Together with the power to elect the lower magistrates, positions where all politicians had to start off, the people were far from a toothless tiger. And Roman politicians were well aware of this. Perhaps the best proof for the power of the people is found in the effort which politicians put into winning the people over. Apparently they saw great relevance in gaining popularity with them. They did so by organizing gladiatorial games, banquets and feasts, handing out grain, bread or money, constructing public buildings, holding triumphs and sharing in the spoils of war, or simply by outright buying votes. Many of these things were made illegal over the years, but politicians never stopped competing for popularity with the people. It is clear the people had some place and relevance in the Roman political system, although it is impossible to say how often they actually successfully exercised their power and voted in favor of themselves and against the desires of the elite. Roman people, both politicians and voters, had the greatest possible respect for tradition and precedent, which would often result in simply bowing to the authority of the senate. By today's standards, the Roman Republic might seem far from perfect, as the voting in the voting assemblies heavily favors certain groups over others, the public offices are all reserved for the rich, and the highest offices are even more exclusive, to name just the most obvious flaws. But back in antiquity, when almost all states were ruled by a king, the Republic was extraordinary as it spread political power across different institutions, offices and layers of society. In order to get things done, all these elements had to work together. Neither the rich nor the poor could act effectively on their own. Ultimately, it is this cooperation, or maybe rather coexistence, of the rich and the poor that best describes the Roman Republic. And the Romans themselves, they would agree, as they described their state as the senate and people of Rome, sanatus et populus que Romanus, or in short, SPQR.